Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

41°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Marriage should be for all

Editor: The Catholic bishop of Fresno, on his Catholic TV station, has been very critical of the action of the state Supreme Court in its decision on homosexual civil marriage in the state of California.

The court took the issue of marriage (civil) and made its decision based on the right of equality to all citizens of California of legal age, and we should make the important distinction: civil marriage and not church marriage, because each has its own sanctions and criteria and I am sure that the bishop should acknowledge that.

Each religious body has the independent right to its own interpretation thereof. The court did not infringe on those rights and respect of religion, all religions. The separation of church and state is very clear in our federal constitution and must be respected by every state Supreme Court.

The courts must protect civil rights of all its citizens, as it did with blacks (civil rights), Asians (right to own property), women (right to vote) and yes, now homosexuals (the right to civil marriage).

This is indeed the court's function to administer justice to all state citizens. It is also the duty of the court to protect the independent right of all religious bodies to administer their own doctrine and interpretations thereof, whether they or we agree with its dogma or not. It is the church's obligation to its followers to maintain order within its church boundaries.

The state Supreme Court recognizes the obligation of all its citizens to function within the boundaries of civil law and respect that law. Within this civil structure we must have proper instruments in every area of this society. Legal documents are absolute necessity and certainly in regard to real estate and personal property. We are all aware of community property rights within partnership of civil marriage, but two homosexuals who share a lifetime of committed partnership, fidelity to that partnership and to God do not have the same legal rights as the heterosexual.

Without that certificate of civil marriage, do the bishop and the public realize the dilemma of the homosexual with investments of real property, financial investments, Social Security, insurance, hospital rights, etc.? Without that document of civil marriage, there is a disparity the homosexual is placed in by an uninformed society. These are the rights the heterosexual enjoys and pays for and the homosexual pays for equally and does not receive.

Some of these people have lived together for over 50 years and still have not received the civil right heterosexuals rightfully and legally enjoy. They are told by the hospital they cannot have necessary papers and instructions for pre-op surgery and dates for lab tests, because you are not a relative and by law, without the document of marriage, you are not entitled to them. Where is the humanity, bishop, or should I say, sanity and common sense? Many say their opinion is based on God's law in the Bible. But Christ, "God himself, in the second person of the Trinity" walked this earth for over 31 years and there is not any record or one word spoken by Christ about homosexuality in that sacred book.

We should all be grateful that when we stand before our Lord on that day, we will be judged and answer only for our lives and not the lives of others.

Tom Mathews

Hanford

(Aug. 28, 2008)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

ppg. wrote on Aug 28, 2008 12:37 PM:

" This is not a civil rights issue. Civil rights is for people who cannot change their skin color.

Homosexuals choose to be what they are. Their civil rights are not being challenged. "

Devils Advocate wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:41 PM:

" Polygamy has more acceptance, practice, and applicability - wouldn't it be better to focus your efforts there? For the expansion of civil rights to more people? Actually, I don't see how you can make the argument for gay marriage if you won't make the exact same arguments in favor of polygamy. Unless you want to be hypocritical, or aren't actually in favor of equal treatment for EVERYONE under the law, but rather your's exclusively. "

AMEN wrote on Aug 28, 2008 1:55 PM:

" AMEN, Mr. Mathews, AMEN! "

Alan G. wrote on Aug 28, 2008 2:04 PM:

" PPG - I think you need to go out and git yerself a college edumacation (misspelled on purpose) on human biology, as well as civil rights. "

Alan G. wrote on Aug 28, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Devil's Advocate - Last I checked, Polygamy wasn't legal for one group in the U.S. but not another. Not a valid comparison. Unless it was legal for a man to have more than one wife, then I could see the argument for a Wife to have more than one husband. You see where I'm going with this?

I know some lame brain will bring up marriage to animals, that always seems to be the next illogical comparison. An argument could be made if it were legal to marry a horse, but not a Schnauzer, I suppose. Now THAT would be a valid argument.

Logic people, logic. "

Devils Advocate wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:16 AM:

" On the contrary, Alan G., unlike most people making up random definitions of civil rights, I'm choosing the one that's actually codified in the Civil Rights Act. There's not to be descrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, religion, marital status, age, etc. The polygamy argument denies me the right to MARRY a member of the opposite sex based on my OWN marital status.
As I said in my first post, I have numbers on my side: As polygamy has been more widely practiced that gay marriage, both in the US and worldwide, it seems obvious that the discrimination is even more egregeous
Come to think of it, people have been getting married at thirteen all around the world, even in the US, though not recently. Kids should be able to get married before homosexuals also.
DENYING homosexual marriage would effect everyone equally, as everyone would retain the right to marry that they've always had.
The farce of homosexual marriage was an unlegislated expansion that unlawfully imposed a previously non-existent "right". If the definition of marriage is left up to the whims of whatever looney comes along, I'd rather see it abolished. "

hmmmm wrote on Aug 29, 2008 4:14 PM:

" I find it very intresting that Devil's Advocate chose to not mention every class that is protected by the Civil Rights Act. In truth, the Act's purpose is to protect Californians from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, religion, age, marital status, SEXUAL ORIENTATION or disability. Perhaps it is because it would destroy his/her's argument? Denying any Civil Right including marriage to homosexuals is nothing less than discrimination. Churches do not solely rule the domain of Marriage so any argument that involves the Bible is irrelevent when it comes to state law (separation of church and state, remember children?). Homosexuals are protected from harassament and other types of discrimination, so therefore they should be entitled to the right of Civil marriage. "

Devils Advocate wrote on Aug 30, 2008 1:33 PM:

" Dear "hmmmm", the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't include sexual orientation, it wasn't writen to protect Californians as it was a Federal law univserally applicable to all States. Denying marriage to homosexuals hasn't ever happpened - I've known a few gay men and women that have married a heterosexual in order to have families and lead lives of deception regarding their orientation - its legal if unconscionable. Which is why its not discrimination. I never mentioned biblical teaching, I kept it entirely in the realm of US law.
My argument doesn't get defeated by including sexual oriention as a protected class. My argument is in fact premised on including sexual orientation as a protected class. Had you actually taken the time to read and understand it, you would have seen that I was saying that IF we are in the business of expanding previously non-existant civil rights, we should start in places that serve more people and could more rationally be assumed.
Nice try, though. Next time, please come armed to our battles, I feel like I'm sparring with a child. "

Melissa wrote on Aug 31, 2008 10:51 PM:

" Devils Advocate..you want to spar with someone spar with me...This is 2008 not 1964. We are protected under the discriminations laws that in fact do say no discrimination based on Sexual Orientation. You want to fight for polygamy by all means go ahead, you are entitled to fight for whatever right you feel you are neglected. So if you want to marry more than one partner go ahead and put up the fight we have put up for years, deal with the ridicule, hatred and discrimination. Deal with being told no solely because your lifestyle does not fit well with what they want society to be. It is not however a reason to deny us the right to marry. Oh and by the way ppg...I choose to be gay the day you choose to be straight. "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 1, 2008 10:59 AM:

" This argument again? The bishop can say what he wants, believe what he wants, and I'm sure this letter isn't changing anyone's opinion. Of course, since I don't agree with homosexuality, I'll be called a bigot or small-minded. If I were responding in favor of the author it would be different though. I agree with ppg. and D.A.
Tom, I'm also glad that God judges us only for our lives, not yours. "

Devils Advocate wrote on Sep 1, 2008 4:02 PM:

" Sure Melissa - if you'd like. I referenced the Civil Rights Act, "hmmmm" butchered it claiming it included groups it doesn't. Of course there are additional classes now based on legislation since 1964 - again, my point was that other classes are similarly affected, and clearly "denied the right to marry". I DO deal with being told no all the time based not only my lifestyle which I control, but also my genetics, which I don't have any control over.
I DO have a great reason to currently deny same-sex marriage - it violates the sovereignty of CA. The established practice of undefined marriage has always been exclusively heterosexual in our State. When it began to be illegally challenged by local governments (they could have worked legally within the systm by attempting to have the matter legislated, but didn't.), legislation was passed to create a new hetero definition. However, once the new definition was overturned, legally the previous practice should have been re-established (which would STILL be heterosexual marriage). Courts have NO power to invent their own definition of marriage; that is exclusively the province of the legislature. Nice emotional appeal, though. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 1, 2008 6:53 PM:

" First of all you can not use a out dated document to prove your point for a current issue, it only makes you look like you do not know what you are talking abouit. You can not discriminate based on sexual orientation which totally shuts down your argument that the courts defined marriage the way they wanted it to be. No they redefined marriage based on the discrimination laws of today. Like it or not we are being discriminated against. For your information just so you understand what "civil rights" are and "discrimination" these definitions come from The American Heritage Dictionary 21st Century Edtion

civil rights-the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, esp. the rights to due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

now based on the fact that The Civil Rights Act does in fact cover non discrimination based on sexual orientation, it is against my civil rights to be told i can not marry.

discriminate-1. To make a clear distinction; differentiate. 2. To make distinctions on the basis of preference or prejudice "

Melissa wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:03 PM:

" So lets review..I am a citizen of the US, I have the freedom against discrimination which we have now learned is anyone using thier own preference of prejudice to differentiate one group from another..and that is protected by my civil rights...

Sounds to me like the court only overturned a bogus law to create a fair chance for us to marry same as anyone else. Not for thier own agenda but in the name of our Civil RIghts. We are not asking your churches to marry us, we are not asking you to come to our weddings, we just want the same right to go to the court house, sign one paper, and that license cover all the same things it covers for heterosexuals.

Amanda R..Homosexuality is not around for you to agree with or disagree with. How we live our lives is our business. We do not choose who we are attracted to..were you not born with the predisposed notion to be attracted to men? Why would my attractions be a choice but not yours?
Really people. "

anyways wrote on Sep 1, 2008 8:34 PM:

" everybody wants to be the victim, life aint fair. we all make choices and we have to live with those regardless of what we do, we make our choices and have to live with the consequences, SO DEAL WITH IT... everyone has a choice just as a criminal does, this is simply not wanting to take responsibilty for ones own actions, these folks ultimately choose this life style so deal with it... "

Devils Advocate wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:20 PM:

" The Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't outdated - its the foundational law that all the others are based on - adding things like sexual orietation merely identify "sexual orientation" as an additional class that still relyies on the original law. 90% of discrimination lawsuits are founded on violation of the original legislation. Whatever - do your research on civil rights laws if you want to debate them.
Had the court ONLY overturned a bogus law, then ALL protected classes would have been given equal treatment in their decision - but it didn't. A reversal of "one man, one woman" on a civil rights basis would have automatically made bigamy legal, it would have made polygamy legal, it would have made marrying your close relations legal, and it would have made marrying children legal. But no, the courts decided that only same-sex marriage would also be legal. Do your research on the function of the judicial proess if you want to debate THAT.
And again, my stated objections have all been legal, not religious.
You also should bring weapons to our battles. You're spirited, I'll give you that, but you need training. "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 1, 2008 9:33 PM:

" Melissa, a woman's attraction to a man is natural and necessary for the continuation of the human race. I believe any other attractions are by choice and unnatural. Again, just my opinion. You are right: homosexuality is not here for the express purpose of being judged by me but everything is subject to my opinion, and I will state mine as I please. You don't have to agree with it, like it, or even listen to/read it, but I have the right to say what I like. You can be an advocate for homosexuals all you want but you're not changing anyone's mind by your postings, continuously arguing with people or "sparring". "

PETA wrote on Sep 1, 2008 11:51 PM:

" If I marry my dog, will my health insurance have to pay his vet bill...? Because, I love my dog very much and dont think it's fair I cant marry my dog and have him benefit from my insurance. Animals are people too! "

Alan G wrote on Sep 2, 2008 9:48 AM:

" PETA - I don't think we've had anyone representing your lifestyle on the boards before. Please tell us more. Curious minds want to know. "

matt wrote on Sep 2, 2008 11:08 AM:

" To Amanda R.

I assume that because you identify as a heterosexual woman you are attracted to men and, presumably, always have been. Was that a choice on your part? Was there ever a time in which you sat down and CHOSE to be heterosexual?

I am a gay man. I can not recall a time in my life when I was sexually or emotionally attracted to a woman. I have always been attracted to other men. For several years, I did try to deny my identity and pursue relationships with women. Clearly, those relationships didn’t work. Eventually, I accepted my identity and live a much happier life as a gay man.

Gay people do not choose to be gay any more than you chose to be straight. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 3, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Amanda R..What about the men and women who are born sterile or barron? What is thier purpose sexually then? You do not choose your attraction you are born with it, that biology. I notice you are picking at my choice of words instead of reading that Devil Advocate chose the words "sparring" is that because you do not agree with what i stand fcr so i am the first one you go for? In case you have not noticed the heterosexuals are on here are arguing just as much. Maybe my arguments make sense to you and it makes you uncomfortable.

Devils Advocate..you are correct the in that FEDERAL LAW sexual orientation is not covered under the civil rights act, BUT California DOES have a law agaisnt discrimination based on sexual orientation, i did my homework. We want the right to get married in CALIFORNIA.

anyways..we do not choose to be gay, we choose to be out of the closet. We are not criminals, that is a ridiculous comparison. It is not about being a victim, lets get real, heterosexuals are playing the victim saying we will ruin marriage. "

HF wrote on Sep 3, 2008 10:48 PM:

" *yawn* same stuff, different day.

and to Melissa, if we're going to critisize 1964 why don't we throw out the entire constitution because it was created WAAAY before and is more "outdated" than anything created in 1964.

P.S. it is entirely possible that the U.S. Supreme court has it's own definition of discrimination and civil rights that are different than Webster, so it is also possible the details of your logic are wrong. "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 3, 2008 11:32 PM:

" I think you mean "barren" Melissa. Read the first half of this article: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01
I singled you out because D.A. came on and expressed an opinion. I don't think her intent was to start an argument. She was discussing a topic. You came on and the instead of discussing and simply stating your opinion, you attacked her post specifically. I don't think you even mention the original article.
Your argument makes no sense to me, and I am not uncomfortable with it or homosexuals. I have gay friends but I don't agree with it. I believe in God and free will. It doesn't make me "uncomfortable" that people use their free will to knowingly disobey God every day. That's for Him to judge, and for them to atone for. "

Con Carne wrote on Sep 4, 2008 7:28 AM:

" CRA64 is all about employment, not marriage. I learned that in some class I took. Using the religious arguement against gay marriage is a moot point when the person you are arguing with has DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong that, but don't we have bigger issues to worry about? Especially in our own county? "

B. wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:11 AM:

" Let`s not forget the people of Ca. voted unanimiously on Prop 22. It passed by 61%. Then, the dishonest immoral liberal judges and the sniveling homosexuals in this state overturn it. Now, what I`d like to see is, two gay men or two lesbian women produce a child the natural way God had intended it. Can`t be done. You people would wipe out the human race.
PETA.....if you marry your dog, which is a sick thought, I wonder what your children would look like if it were possible? "

jeff wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:18 AM:

" One thing I don’t understand is that most of the Anti-Gay Marriage folks are Republican and one of their core values is less Government. If this is the case than why is it you ask for more government to be involved in the most personal parts of your lives? Marriage abortion and right-to-die laws (As in when you have to rely on a machine to keep you alive) you don’t want the government telling you how to spend your money but you can’t wait for them to tell you how to live the most intimate details of your lives. "

NotHomeGrown wrote on Sep 4, 2008 12:43 PM:

" To Jeff, your post made me even prouder to be proud to be a Republican. I have posted many times that I am all for marriage as it is defined, between a man and woman. If you find another man that has the same sexual deviation as you then have fun, just don't tell the majority of us that you want to get "married", you don't fit the mold. Live outside the closet and enjoy life, but stop cramming your requests down the majorities requests. Why do you think your opinions matter more than the majority. "

whitey wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:01 PM:

" if people dont like gay marriage, then they should blame straight people since they are the ones who keep having gay babies.

let them live their life. love is love. "

whitey wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:07 PM:

" to B.
did you happen to read the hot topic articles? the ones about 12 year old girls arrested for plotting to stab and cause great bodily harm on another child? or the one about two boys got in a fight at school and one ended up with blunt force trauma to the head and was on life support? maybe this world would benefit from having less kids like that on the street dont you think? "

jeff wrote on Sep 4, 2008 3:45 PM:

" To NotHomeGrown,

Thanks for not answering my question; I’m not sure why you even bothered to reply to me. I have other questions you probably are unable to answer. How is letting two men or two women marry cramming anything down your throat? No one is making you do it, no one is making you attend the wedding and no one is making your church hold these weddings. How does two people of the same sex getting married even effect you? How would it change your life as it stands now? Gay people are getting married as we speak, have you noticed any actual changes in your life or in your marriage? Did your car stop running? Did you lose your job? What negative events have taken place to you personally since it was ruled legal? "

Con Carne wrote on Sep 4, 2008 4:15 PM:

" I'm not gay nor democrat, pun not intended. However, fellow republicans and/or independants, what is the arguement against gay marriage? Now take religious beliefs out of the equation and answer that question again. How can we call ourselves constitionalists but advocate government defining what is and what isn't an acceptable marriage? "

dose wrote on Sep 4, 2008 8:39 PM:

" Well I don't understand why Amanda keeps saying over and over again how gay people are destroying her right to hate them, because I don't think anybody cares what Amanda or any other republican homophobe thinks about gay marriage. You have the right to feel anyway you want too. What you don't have is the right to force the rest of us to live according to your beliefs.

"And be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

~Ephesians 4:32~

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."

~Luke 6:37~

"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another."

~1 John 3:11~

The world would be such a better place if Christians actually practiced Christianity. "

motherofthree wrote on Sep 4, 2008 9:04 PM:

" anyone and everyone should be allowed to marry WHO EVER they want to and it should not be anyone's business but theirs. There is way too many things to worry about in the world then someone else's love life! If you do not like it OH WELL! get used to it... or find some more hobbies to keep you busy. "

B. wrote on Sep 4, 2008 10:13 PM:

" To Whitey.......I call situations like you stated POOR PARENTING. If you look at the way kids dress, look, act in public, have no respect for anyone, lack of interest in getting an education and lack of dicipline it`s no wonder acts of violance like this happen. It appears most kids today want to look like freaks, talk on cell phones and skateboard. Not a good future for them. I also feel there are a lot of people who should not be allowed to have children. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:26 PM:

" Amanda R. D.A was "sparring" with someone else when i come onto the board, if she wasnt trying to argue she would not have been. Thanks for correcting my spelling I take it your a graduated scholar? My God loves me the way I am and the way he made me. I am disobeying no one. I dont think Thou Shalt Not Commit Homosexuality is one of the 10 commandments. Is it?

B. The heterosexuals are sniviling more than anyone. Crying that things would not be the way God intended it! Please. Are you so vain as to think you know what God intended for this Earth?
We are born with our attraction I do not understand what is so hard about that. You were born with yours and I was born with mine. Its obvious you are not attracted to your same sex, why do you think that is....biology, attraction. Something you are born with. What is funny to me is all this judging and horrible words directed towards other human beings tsk tsk what would God think of that? I think you all use God as an excuse to push your own views on other people. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 4, 2008 11:35 PM:

" I also want to add that I also do not see how all the gay couples who have gotten married have effected anyones life but thier own. They made thier love and commitment legal, that is so awesome. There are some people in this world that search forever trying to find that one love and I think those who have found it should be able to celebrate it and legally commit to each other same as the next person. No one has the right to tell another person who they should love, or marry. That is just no ones business but thier own. "

whitey wrote on Sep 5, 2008 8:37 AM:

" To B...
That is a crock. I am a parent as well as a step parent, No matter what i do with my step son, he refuses to listen. NO MATTER WHAT. kids are going to do what they want. Sure i would love to try to knock some sense into him, but he is not my son, and he is of the age where it wouldnt do any good and most likely land me in jail. You CANT keep an eye on your kids 24/7. especially when they are in school. And it is not in all cases a lack of parenting, if that was the case there would be no black sheeps in families. and we all know every family has a black sheep.

i agree with melissa 100%. you cant force yourself to like something, i think people ARE born gay. Its not a preference, its whats in their heart. its what is right for them. "

B. wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:11 AM:

" To Melissa......you wouldn`t know how to do things the LEGAL way. You`re a democrat. "

Devils Advocate wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:46 AM:

" This is hilarious! Despite the claims, the only people making religious arguments, or even bringing up religion at all, are in FAVOR of same-sex marriage! NO ONE against has used a religious argument!
Dose: "anyone and everyone should be allowed to marry WHO EVER they want to and it should not be anyone's business but theirs.” Really? How about kids – you’re ok with a 13 yr old marrying a 40 yr old? People already married – you believe polygamy should be legal? What if I want to marry my sister?!? These cases affect more people than orientation discrimination – where’s your soapbox for them?
Melissa: “Sounds to me like the court only overturned a bogus law to create a fair chance for us to marry same as anyone else.” No, because the right to marry didn’t exist for EVERYONE else (see above) – it ended up inventing rights to one class.
Overturning a legal definition of marriage on the basis of civil liberty, you either go back to the previous, unwritten definition (the biological, self-evident one) or you expand the availablility to ALL classes. You don't pick and choose. "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 5, 2008 10:16 AM:

" Dose, what are you talking about? I don't hate gay people. I'm also not a republican. I don't agree with gay marriages, or their lifestyle. I don't think they're bad people or not deserving of love, I don't agree with them marrying. I'm not forcing my views on them any more than they're forcing me to accept theirs. I have to accept gay marriage but they can't accept my disagreement with it? Quote scripture all you want, I am strong in my faith and it's not for you to question.
Melissa, I am no graduated scholar. Heck, I graduated from high school three years ago. Poor grammar and spelling is just one of my pet peeves. You're right, God does love you. If you believe that he loves the way you live, then noone can convince you otherwise and He'll judge you the way he sees fit. I don't know for sure how that will be, but I personally don't see that turning out well. I don't care if you agree.
motherofthree: I bet you'd be singing a different tune if your husband wanted to marry another woman. If he loves her too though, noone should worry about it, right? "

whitey wrote on Sep 5, 2008 1:39 PM:

" i dont understand why people always feel the need to twist stuff around.
Marriage should be between 2 consenting adults.
No its not okay for a 13y/o to marry a 40 y/o.
if someone wants to marry their sister... go for it. its your business.
im republican, and i think its great that gays are finally able to wed.
it wasnt right back in the day when black people were around? remember that? now look, they have all the same rights white people do. because it is unfair to discriminate. people cant help that they are gay. just like i cant help that i dont like peanuts. "

jeff wrote on Sep 5, 2008 2:10 PM:

" DA,

You must be blind or something. I am pro gay marriage and I have not made one religious argument in this discussion. Most of us are familiar with each other and know where we all stand on this issue. You can’t tell me that Amanda, NotHomeGrown, and you don’t feel this is wrong because of religious reasons. You might feel there are reasons in addition to the religious ones but to say that religion doesn’t factor in at all is ridiculous. Also, in case you missed it this entire article is religious based because it was written in response to things a Catholic Bishop has been saying on TV. The very nature of this thread is religious. Did you read the article? Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Amanda said yesterday “I believe in God and free will. It doesn't make me "uncomfortable" that people use their free will to knowingly disobey God “ That sounds like religion to me but hey I’m an Atheist.

Amanda,

You’re wrong, no one is making you accept it. You can still continue to hate gay marriage as much as you want. "

dose wrote on Sep 5, 2008 6:00 PM:

" Devils Advocate, I don't know what you are talking about I never said that anyone should be able to marry anyone they want whenever they want. However I do believe that any two or more consenting adults who want to marry should be allowed to do so. I dont have a problem with polygany as long as it is between adults.

Amanda, well you couldn't have said it better. You think it is ok to tell a certain class of people they aren't good enough to marry eachother. But when Lady Justice tells you you are wrong you say your rights are being taken away from you. You may be firm in your faith it is just too bad you don't believe the same thing as Jesus Christ did, I'm sure you've heard of him he was one of the world's first community organizers. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:31 PM:

" First of B. I am not a democrat, stereotyping me? Do you think all homosexuals are democrats? Sounds kinda presumptuous to me.

DA I agree with Whitney, what does two legal consenting adults have to do with children marrying adults? Children are protected because they do not have the life experience yet to make that desicion. I am an adult, I can decide who I want to marry. Also in case you did not notice what all this is about, the article is religious. Amanda is the one brought up religion, you know the one who agrees with you? She brought it up and i posted my opinion to her religious comments. Really you started out like you knew what was going on do not start slacking now.

Amanda when you reach my education level in English you can then point out my mistakes. One misspelled word does not show everyone how smart you are. Your article is again a religious site in which they are pushing thier views onto others based on thier belief. They name several reasons why they think marriage for same sex couples should not be legal but do not provide clear unbiased.. "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:49 PM:

" This will be my last post on this subject. Dose, you don't get it. I'm not saying they're not good enough, I just don't think it is right! Geez! Also, I don't look down on people of different classes or lifestyles. I have friends from all walks of life, homosexuals included, but I do not have to agree with what they do! Get it through your head. I'm sure I am nowhere near as good as Jesus, he was perfect, but I am not as bad as you think I am.
Jeff, seriously, just stop responding to me. You take things out of context on every post I make. I remember, you don't like me for driving an SUV. Who's the hater now?
D.A. is partially correct: my argument is not only one against the sin of homosexuality. It is unnatural. If I were an Atheist, I would still believe it is unnatural! "

Melissa wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:49 PM:

" Amanda cont...answers. They say our unions " do not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual couples" wrong. We too can get pregnant thanks to science and produce children, we do not have to marry a man to do that. Hence teenage mothers, single mothers. They also say our "consequences are far more negative than postive" yet fail to say how. My relationship is not negative in anyway, My question to you was what is the purpose of sterile or BARREN women are sexually? Your article says "we still recongnize childless marriages because it would be an invasion of a heterosexual couples privacy that they prove thier intent or ability to bear children" Does that seem like the answer to my question? Your argument is that marriage is for reproduction yet you dont have to prove you can have children? Your article bounces around and does not in anyway give any real evidence as to why same sex couples should not marry, but in fact shows the oppositions arguments for what they are.. far and reaching, as well as discriminatory and judgemental. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:52 PM:

" Sorry, Dose, you are absolutely right. When I was composing I had started with a quote from you followed by a quote from motherofthree - when I ran out of room I edited you out, but apparently clipped the wrong name. My bad.

Jeff, wasn't talking about you. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 5, 2008 9:53 PM:

" Amanda cont..When you have a real answer to my question let me know, I would love to hear it. I do not want a religious answer, I want a legal, non discriminatory, non judgemental answer. It really makes me laugh that article of yours, the laws in this courntry protect ALL its citizens, not just the ones society deems acceptable. "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 6, 2008 6:30 AM:

" It's not natural. It is not productive or necessary in any way. Period, end of story from me. I knew you all would pick on my posts for disagreeing. I forgot that it's only discriminatory to disagree with it, but not considered so when heterosexuals are called names and haters. I'm not changing your minds, and you all can't accept my side at all, so I'll just shut up. I'm just glad that the majority agrees with me. "

dose wrote on Sep 6, 2008 9:10 AM:

" To Devils Advocate, apology accepted. I've done dumb things like that myslef. It happens. "

B. wrote on Sep 6, 2008 11:07 AM:

" Whitey....you are exactly the type of person I`m talking about. You can`t & do not know how to be a parent. Your kids are the parents, they tell you what they will & won`t do. No wonder you have so many problems with them. All I can is, you`ll probably be visiting them on weekends at the local prison. Good luck to you....you`ll need it. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 6, 2008 10:07 PM:

" First of all Amanda i never heard anyone on here call heterosexuals names nor call them haters. I think you are confusing me with another Melissa who i have seen on here making those references to heterosexuals. I want to make this perfectly clear I am not the Melissa that was featured in the Hanford Sentinel. I did read some of her posts and I do not agree with some ot the language she used. Second of all I am glad to see many people with open eyes to homosexuality. There will always be opposition, no one agrees all the time. I am just glad to know from the responses on this blog and some others I was on there are those who do not want to deny us the right to marry and that it is not the majority agaisnt us, like some believe. Right now it is very divided as the polls show. Thanks to all of you who support us and know we ARE born this way and do DESERVE the same rights as any other consenting adults in this ocuntry. "

whitey wrote on Sep 7, 2008 4:29 PM:

" B...
I said my step son was like that. not MY son. i'll be damned if MY son acts the way my step son does. But i cant say i blame my step son.... no body (his mother) bothered to show him what respect was all about untill i started to instill it on him. and starting at 10 years old when he has never had to before.... its hard work, but i havent gave up yet. thank you very much. "

melMAOB wrote on Sep 8, 2008 3:38 AM:

" Well, Melissa I am glad that you do not agree with some of my opinions...I'm glad to see the American way still alive in some of these people around here. Yes I do believe that some heterosexuals are haters to say the least. I did not choose to be gay. Don't hate on me nor my life because of my orientation. I am proud to be gay I love my partner and my son loves his two moms. I hear people say not to push our agenda on them, but it is those heterosexuals knocking on peoples door being rude and ignorant, not the LGBTQ community. Marriage is about many different things depending on the culture of the couple. I do believe that the LGBTQ community should have the right to marry preserved,I wish it would be in my lifetime, but I know American history and these things take time...just like freeing the slaves and finally giving them equality....the LGBTQ community will one day stand up and say we have equality, but until that day shame on the society that denies us that chance. "

melMAOB wrote on Sep 8, 2008 3:41 AM:

" Hey Peta....Your comment has no basis. I will stand behind you and your effort to marry the dog you love so much just as soon as you start having sexual relations with him or her. Until that day happens though, you cannot compare the two loves. I love my soon to be wife and enjoy every benefit of being in a relationship... "

jeff wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:54 AM:

" Amanda,

Take your comments out of context? I’m not sure you understand what context means. Let me help you, it does not mean quoting someone and than using that quote against that person. I took nothing out of context and if you think I did you do not understand the meaning of the word. If you were an Atheist you might try learning about Nature and Science instead of superstition. If you did you would know that there are 12 species of mammal (FYI you’re a mammal), 4 species of bird, 16 species of fish and way too many vertebrates and insects to count that engage in homosexual behavior. I never said I hated you because you drive an SUV (This is close to taking something out of context, but you’re really just making things up now) what I did say was that your reasons for owning one were weak and they are. "

whitey wrote on Sep 8, 2008 8:54 AM:

" to B...
I left another comment, i dont think they approved it. I just want you to know, I was talking about my STEP SON behaving that way. Over MY dead body will MY SON act the way my step son does. I became his step mother figure when he was 8. Now his father and i are married and the little respect for me that he did have is ALL out the window because now he knows is mother is not comming back. Like i said before, i would love to get him in line but its very hard when you know all they need is a good kick in the pants and my husband works long long hours and is on business trips. so all the parenting is up to me for the most part. My step son has already done boot camp, he was on probation, nothing gets through to him. the only thing that can make him change is to go live with his mother and she dont want him. so, i just thought i would clarify that for you since you seem to think you know everything about my parenting skills "

Amanda R wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:06 AM:

" Jeff,
"You can still continue to hate gay marriage as much as you want. "
What you quoted from me said nothing about hate. My reasons for owning an SUV are valid. I never said you hated me, I said you don't like me. I used the word hater, it's a slang word you may not be familiar with. Look it up on urbandictionary.com. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 8, 2008 11:37 AM:

" melMOAB lets get something clarified, I am gay, i was born this way too, i do not believe that by calling anyone any names it is going to get our lifestyle anymore accepted. I love my partner as well and we have been together for two years and plan on marrying once we get the ability to do so, however I do not like being called derogatory names why stoop to thier level? It does not look well on our community to show we have the same judgemental attitudes they have. We are two different people, everyone knows that, we have to differrent ways of dealing with people and everyone knows that as well. I fight for our rights just as much as anyone else but treating them the way they treat us just gives them one more reason to judge us. I do not hate on your lifestyle, i live the same lifestyle. We have a home, we pay our taxes, we drive on the same roads and I to want the same rights I am just not willing to lower myself to that kind of language. "

Melissa wrote on Sep 8, 2008 12:07 PM:

" melMOAB cont..I do not see how you can turn me saying that I do not agree with your language into me hating on you. If you were referring to the heterosexuals who do not want us to have the same rights u should be more specific however in context to your blog it seems it was directed at me. Have you not read the entire blog i wrote or did you just read that i did not agree with your language? To imply someone is "hating" on you is to imply they are jealous of something you have. I do not think they are jealous of our lifestyle only uneducated.
Our community needs to show unity and understanding for those who do not understand.. Those who oppose us we should feel sorry for, for it is the narrowmindedness that limits them from seeing the world for the beatiful, diverse place it is. "

jeff wrote on Sep 8, 2008 5:18 PM:

" Amanda,

Thanks for proving my point for me. When I said to you "You can still continue to hate gay marriage as much as you want” I wasn’t taking anything you said out of context because you never said that, notice how that sentence is not surrounded by quotes in the comment I originally put it in? Please go to a real dictionary such as wordnet, dictionary.com Webster’s online or a real hold in your hand and turn pages dictionary and look up the word ‘Context’. I did quote you accurately and within context when I pasted “I believe in God and free will. It doesn't make me "uncomfortable" that people use their free will to knowingly disobey God“, which is completely untrue since you’re against them getting married because you say it’s disobeying God and you most certainly do not appear to be comfortable with gay people getting married. "

gees wrote on Sep 9, 2008 12:50 PM:

" gees....here we go again beating a dead horse... "

melMAOB wrote on Sep 9, 2008 9:40 PM:

" Melissa, Sorry my whole blog was not aimed at you. I do feel however I am not stooping to their level...I am statinmy opinion which happens to think that heterosexuals are not uneducated I know many that are...I think that heterosexuals who vote against equality for all are close minded idiots. And idiots can be educated.

But I have read your post and am glad that you voice your ideas and thoughts...no if we could get the rest of our community to do the same!!!

VOTE NO ON PROP 8!!!!! "

Melissa wrote on Sep 10, 2008 1:05 PM:

" I am not going to sit on here and call anybody an idiot...Most ARE just uneducated. Yes, you can educate the uneducated. that does not make them idiots.I think the finger you are pointing is pointing back at you. Maybe you are the uneducated because obviously you do not know how to present your opinion to people who don't want it. These people don't care about your opinion, and when you sit and call them names like idiots you make them shut you out more. If you had any kind of people skills at all you would know that saying the things you say is making homosexuals look bad.We are not trying to shuve our way of love down there throats and we are definately not going to call names to those who don't get it. Maybe you think you understand the heterosexual community because you are in denial about being straight. Everyone that KNOWS you knows that you really want to be with a man...Quit making homosexuals look bad. Heterosexuals do it enough without your help. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

: Hanford Luminaria; Friday, November, 20 2009; (6) Photos

: Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (13) Photos

: Fire on Hawk Street; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (11) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (37) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts